If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The miniseries "When We Rise" (centralized on two gay men and other LGBTQ issues) featured on ABC which received abundant advertising during the Oscars has apparently flopped - it tanked from the first episode: From Deadline: "It was a noble effort, but viewers largely shunned it, with the opening two hours averaging a paltry 0.7 in 18-49 and 3 million viewers coming off the strong Bachelor lead-in." “When We Rise was the lowest-rated program on the Big 4 [CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX] and second lowest-rated overall last night, matching the CW’s Supergirl (0.7, even with last week). The CW’s Jane The Virgin (0.3) was off by a tenth

From Lifesitenews: "The homosexual magazine [The Advocate] was reduced to urging its readers to start watching When We Rise, as well as Oscar Best Picture-winning movie, Moonlight, which features a young “gay” black man “coming out” and a homosexual relationship. As Forbes reported, Moonlight “is among the lowest-grossing Oscar Best Picture winners ever.”

My comment on this is: I believe, that because God lives in all of us, God, graciously gives mankind a certain level of a sense of discernment - whether we are religious or non- religious. (Whether we accept this discernment or not, is up to us).

I believe that most humans can sense (even without religious teaching) that homosexuality is "not normal". It absolutely goes against nature - a nature that is visible to most. It goes against life itself in that it produces no offspring on its own. One normally senses "something is off here" - something "isn't right about this".

Final comment on this: "the propaganda doesn't seem to be working".

Mother Teresa on abortion: "It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."

I'm a woman. A conservative devout Christian woman. A conservative Christian woman who doesn't like the "gay agenda" weaseling in kid's motion pictures.

I noticed nobody here answered my initial question:

What if you wrote a story that was near and dear to your heart - you put your whole heart and soul into it. You could even very well be a devout Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc. Then someone whom you've never met, don't even know, takes your painstaking work, and decides to "add in storyline" that was never intended by you to be added - and, in fact, this "added storyline" was to promote an outlandish agenda to "corrupt children". How would you feel? And my next question to you is - how is this even legal to do (Referring to the corruption of Beauty and the Beast)?

As a devout Christian... how do you feel about the bestiality in Beauty and the Beast?

You know, it is interesting you bring this up, because, with all of this controversy, I took the time (about a week ago) to actually read the original book itself. There isn't even a character Gaston in this book, nor anywhere near any type of homosexual relationship. My conclusion: Disney has taken upon itself to alter and edit authorship of books for quite some time now.

There have been homosexual references and inuendos in Disney movies for decades. Lion King, alladinot, Peter Pan, snow white, pinnocio, hell you remember launchpad from duck tales? They are all there mostly cleverly hidden, but there isn't really any reason to be all coy about it anymore.

My thought would be, if you don't want your story being changed, don't sell the rights to it. As far as legality is concerned, copyright law in the u.s is life of the author plus 70 years. After that people are free to put whatever spin on it they choose. Since the folktale of batb was wrote in 1790 don't think that qualifies under said protection. In particular the new film was based on the Disney adaptation of the story so those writers sold or were hired by Disney to write it and thus it's copyright belongs to Disney and they can do whatever they choose with it..

So, in other words, what you are stating is "since this poor author (Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve) - who had no say in someone else corrupting her work - and, in which, these U.S. laws which probably don't even pertain to her, (the author being born in Paris in the 1600's) - and in which she never had an opportunity to agree to - - it's basically tough breaks for you lady - "we can corrupt as many kids as we want with your work!" Is that it?

Last edited by Stardust; March 20th, 2017 at 7:08 pm.

Mother Teresa on abortion: "It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."

In regards to beauty and the beast. It is minimal in the movie to the point I didnt really even notice it as more than a joke about the character and I dont think most people.would notice ot care. But I will admit that hollywood unnecessarily adding that kind of nonsense to shows and movies for no real story reasons and merely for political purposes to expose people more to such things annoy me. I do not mean a show like glee or modern family where a character is like that from the start but more where they take a character and suddenly bring that out in them. It is just annoying and feels way too forced.

As for the failing or success of a show, it has nothing to do with that. I dont think most people even care.

As a devout Christian... how do you feel about the bestiality in Beauty and the Beast?

You know, I didn't see the movie (and don't really intend to). I have no clue even if your statement is correct. I highly doubt it. I read conservative Christian boards all the time, and there has been no mention of this.

Mother Teresa on abortion: "It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."

You know, I didn't see the movie (and don't really intend to). I have no clue even if your statement is correct. I highly doubt it. I read conservative Christian boards all the time, and there has been no mention of this.

It is right there in the title.

Kakistocracy n. (kak·is·toc·ra·cy / kækɪsˈtɑkɹəsi) Government by the worst persons; a form of government in which the worst persons are in power.

the main stream media has a problem with homosexuality being deviant behavior so they are working tirelessly to make it, well, mainstream.

I have a lot of problems with the MSM, but there is nothing deviant about homosexuality, and have no problem with it being considered mainstream.
Putting ketchup on fish sticks is deviant, homosexuality is not.

I am a very spiritual person - I can't deny that whatsoever. If I were in heaven (or, say, purgatory......I'm Catholic). The last thing that I would want is to have my work which I had labored at on earth to be altered and corrupted - of which altering and corrupting is both offensive to the God I serve and to children on earth.

When was the last time your almighty God took it upon himself to read a book or catch the latest flick at the drive in? Running the universe seems like an awfully consuming task, throw in some smiting, several billion spankings, and the never-ending chore of looking at people's life grade card. I'm thinking a reference to another one of the creatures he created probably doesn't register to highly on the scales of justice, right up there with those damn shrimp eaters.

I believe that most humans can sense (even without religious teaching) that homosexuality is "not normal". It absolutely goes against nature - a nature that is visible to most. It goes against life itself in that it produces no offspring on its own. One normally senses "something is off here" - something "isn't right about this".

Final comment on this: "the propaganda doesn't seem to be working".

You know what I figure is "not normal"? Telling people how you think they should live their lives. This is what I don't get about a lot of conservatives...you're all about having the Government but out and stop trying to take your hard-earned dollars and put in all of their regulations, but you've got no compunctions about making judgments about who someone should share their bed with. It seems to me that the only conservatives that aren't complete and utter hypocrites are the libertarians.

We're a free country... people ought to have the right to live the way they want and sleep with whatever consenting adults they want to sleep with and marry whoever will put up with them. And if they're women, they ought to have the right to decide whether or not they want to be pregnant. That's freedom... seems perfectly normal to me.

That being I said, I don't know about the TV show... don't really watch much TV outside of news and sports and one or two shows, so I've never seen the one you're talking about. Maybe it was like the 90%+ of TV shows out there that are complete crap?

I have a lot of problems with the MSM, but there is nothing deviant about homosexuality, and have no problem with it being considered mainstream.
Putting ketchup on fish sticks is deviant, homosexuality is not.

And mayonnaise on french fries. Mayonnaise is the bile of Satan himself and should be banned for all of eternity.

Last edited by Clamp; March 20th, 2017 at 7:21 pm.
Reason: 2 n's in mayo

The miniseries "When We Rise" (centralized on two gay men and other LGBTQ issues) featured on ABC which received abundant advertising during the Oscars has apparently flopped - it tanked from the first episode: From Deadline: "It was a noble effort, but viewers largely shunned it, with the opening two hours averaging a paltry 0.7 in 18-49 and 3 million viewers coming off the strong Bachelor lead-in." “When We Rise was the lowest-rated program on the Big 4 [CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX] and second lowest-rated overall last night, matching the CW’s Supergirl (0.7, even with last week). The CW’s Jane The Virgin (0.3) was off by a tenth

From Lifesitenews: "The homosexual magazine [The Advocate] was reduced to urging its readers to start watching When We Rise, as well as Oscar Best Picture-winning movie, Moonlight, which features a young “gay” black man “coming out” and a homosexual relationship. As Forbes reported, Moonlight “is among the lowest-grossing Oscar Best Picture winners ever.”

My comment on this is: I believe, that because God lives in all of us, God, graciously gives mankind a certain level of a sense of discernment - whether we are religious or non- religious. (Whether we accept this discernment or not, is up to us).

I believe that most humans can sense (even without religious teaching) that homosexuality is "not normal". It absolutely goes against nature - a nature that is visible to most. It goes against life itself in that it produces no offspring on its own. One normally senses "something is off here" - something "isn't right about this".

So, in other words, what you are stating is "since this poor author (Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve) - who had no say in someone else corrupting her work - and, in which, these U.S. laws which probably don't even pertain to her, (the author being born in Paris in the 1600's) - and in which she never had an opportunity to agree to - - it's basically tough breaks for you lady - "we can corrupt as many kids as we want with your work!" Is that it?

Yes. Those characters don't belong to her anymore, they belong to all of us. And if someone wants to put those characters into a different situation in order to explore some other subject matter, they are free to do so. Suck it up, buttercup.